Previous posts in this discussion:
PostParliamentary vs Presidential Systems (John Heelan, UK, 04/22/14 12:59 pm)
When commenting Bienvenido Macario's post of 22 April, JE asked: "The US embracing a parliamentary system is a non-starter. Are the advanced parliamentary democracies (say, Europe or Japan) any less dysfunctional?"
Having observed the "Mother of Democracy" in action for more decades than I wish to admit, I have always admired the US constitutional separation of powers--Executive, Legislative and Judicial--even though over time human nature and vested interests have narrowed that separation at times.
On the other hand, I have noticed that the leaders of European democracies have tried to nudge them towards a presidential approach. One can think of Thatcher's political dominance, Blair's "Sofa Administration," and the "Berlusconi method." So, although, both approaches claim to be democratic, is not realpolitik making the difference between US and European constitutional become narrower?
JE comments: By this interpretation, the Presidential system is taking over. Perhaps because the office smacks more of old-school imperialism? It would be interesting to compare the number of parliamentary vs. presidential systems that have emerged in the "new" democracies of the last 30 years--particularly in E Europe and Latin America. Can anyone provide this data?